I think a good year for McCoy would be somewhere around 3500 yds 18td 12 int 62-65%A lot of the yardage depends on how much running we do or don't do.. but I would say these stats would be a step in the right direction.. a 20 TD season would be superb, a 65%+ Completion percentage would also be great.

Bradford's rookie year numbers would represent a pretty serious statistical regression, so I'm hoping for a lot more than that.

As long as he's passing the eye test, in a new offense for him, I'd be satisfied with a full season at 60+% & 7.0+ YPA. (His numbers last year, and his preseason numbers this year.) That, IMO, would earn him another year as the starter. 65+% & 7.5+ YPA and I'm giggling giddy.

HoodooMan wrote:Bradford's rookie year numbers would represent a pretty serious statistical regression, so I'm hoping for a lot more than that.

As long as he's passing the eye test, in a new offense for him, I'd be satisfied with a full season at 60+% & 7.0+ YPA. (His numbers last year, and his preseason numbers this year.) That, IMO, would earn him another year as the starter. 65+% & 7.5+ YPA and I'm giggling giddy.

IMO it is too hard to quantify with just stats or just wins since both can be significantly impacted by the team around him.

The eye test is probably the most crucial test to pass, improvement in the vast majority of areas is important as well. Decision making getting better as weeks go by is key (esp the type that keep drives alive and maintain FP), accuracy improvements/consistency and of course not losing games from the QB position. A great statistical season by Colt but a disappointing season by the team (in terms of W-L) probably raises Colts trade value.

Also let's not forget the system in place could and should make him look better, which could work both for and against the overall evaluation of him in the end.

Criminals in this town used to believe in things...honor, respect."I heard your dog is sick, so bought you this shovel"

Sorry. Wins are the only stat that matter for a starting QB. The great ones make them happen. The good ones win with help. Everyone else is just collecting a paycheck.

It is his second season. He gets about as manageable opening stretch to the season as one could hope for to build momentum.

Obviously, he could have a season that proves he is worthy of not having to take a QB next year and not get to 8 wins. Just like he could get to 8 wins and look lost, or take the Brady Quinn route to 4 of those wins. But for the most part, win 8 games. Look comfortable and efficient in doing it.

Lose a 11 games?Look befuddled?Turn the ball over?Panic in the packet?Be afraid to push the ball down the field?

Time to start over.

I don't think that is going to happen. Except for the push the ball down field. He is going to LOOK the part. Which is why I put the best way to judge him as wins and losses.

FUDU wrote:Colt doesn't play defense pup, so please stay realistic and objective when it comes to the whole wins makes the man thing.

No.

Like I said, he could go out there and put up 35 a game and they go 4-12, which would make my 8 wins being the "good season" incorrect.

Just like he could go out there and win 8 games behind 45 rushes, ball control offense where he just manages things.

I do not think either of those scenarios are likely.

So his job is to win. He is the QB. The most important position in sports. And if he is not good enough to win 8 games against this schedule, he will never be good enough to consistently beat Pittsburgh and Baltimore.

The question was what makes for a good season for Colt. My benchmark is 8 wins. There is not a QB in the league, worth his salt, that 8 wins would not be the minimum for in their second year. If he wants to be the man, go be the man and win some god damn football games.

FUDU wrote:Colt doesn't play defense pup, so please stay realistic and objective when it comes to the whole wins makes the man thing.

No.

Like I said, he could go out there and put up 35 a game and they go 4-12, which would make my 8 wins being the "good season" incorrect.

Just like he could go out there and win 8 games behind 45 rushes, ball control offense where he just manages things.

I do not think either of those scenarios are likely.

So his job is to win. He is the QB. The most important position in sports. And if he is not good enough to win 8 games against this schedule, he will never be good enough to consistently beat Pittsburgh and Baltimore.

The question was what makes for a good season for Colt. My benchmark is 8 wins. There is not a QB in the league, worth his salt, that 8 wins would not be the minimum for in their second year. If he wants to be the man, go be the man and win some god damn football games.

If you're a good quarterback, the wins eventually find you. Not too many great QB's that were stuck on losers their whole career.

Colt's college coach Mack Brown said it best when asked about recruiting that position, "The first thing you look for is if he's winning, cause if he's not winning with those guys, he's not gonna win with mine."

And of course there's other variables, hence the reason Pup set a bar at 8 wins. If QB was all that mattered, and there were no other variables, it'd be 12 or 13.

jta1975 wrote:Interesting measuring sticks... by some gauges Colt is already better than Tom Brady and Drew Brees... I am pumped

Colt should win because that's what second year QBs do with a completely new offensive system (which took Aaron Rodgers a couple of years to learn), and a new HC, and a bunch of stiffs at wideout (including a former QB and a guy who hasn't taken a snap in a live game for 18 months - whoot whoot!)

That's OK because Colt has had all of that mentoring in Kiln by Favray, not to mention all of the OTAs and mini camps and spending all summer with Shurmur and wait....what?

Nevermind.

I don't need to be patient, they're going to be shit forever. - CDT, discussing my favorite NFL team

pup wrote:So his job is to win. He is the QB. The most important position in sports. And if he is not good enough to win 8 games against this schedule, he will never be good enough to consistently beat Pittsburgh and Baltimore.

I admit it, when I read this, my first instinct was to squat and crap all over this take. Colt only being in charge of one side of the ball, can't help it if his defense plays like shit, can't help it if his O-line has him running for his life, etc.

Then I took a look at what really good QBs have done. And I pulled my figurative pants back up. Great/very good QBs have a way of making their teams win, and soon.

Here's a sample of the number of wins for some the game's better QBs in their first two seasons:

Brady - 5 wins in year 1, 11 (and a SB win) in year 2Peyton Manning - 3, 13Eli Manning - 6, 11McNabb - 5, 11Ryan - 11, 9Roethlisberger - 15, 11 (SB win)Elway - 9, 13Favre - 9, 9Aikman - 1, 7Kelly - 4, 7Montana - 6, 13 (SB win) (note: these are his first two seasons with significant playing time; he threw 23 passes his rookie season, which I do not consider here)Bradshaw - 5, 6Brees - 8, 4 (followed by 12 in year 3; he also falls into the category of his first NFL season not counting because of inactivity)

This sample is admittedly unscientific, and these guys cover a wide range of situations. Guys like Roethlisberger and Marino slipped in the draft to very good teams. But guys like Aikman, Peyton, Kelly, and Montana were drafted by some pretty awful teams -- ones that I am sure had holes all over the roster -- yet by their second seasons, they were winning ballgames. The great ones (even the ones who are "only" very good) find ways to win.

It's interesting that the one example that people most like to compare McCoy to -- Drew Brees -- actually goes against the pattern. He won 8 games in his rookie(*) season, then fell to 4 wins the next year. That's when the Chargers drafted Philip Rivers ... and that's when Brees came back to win 12 games.

I'm not going to go so far as to say that if Colt doesn't win 8 games this season, then he should be flushed and the process of finding a new QB should begin. If the Browns go 6-10 or 7-9 and show a lot of progress on offense, I'd be willing to stick it out with Colt. But Pup's point has a lot of history behind it, so I wouldn't be too quick to dismiss it.

If it flies, floats, or fornicates, always rent it -- it's cheaper in the long run.

pup wrote:So his job is to win. He is the QB. The most important position in sports. And if he is not good enough to win 8 games against this schedule, he will never be good enough to consistently beat Pittsburgh and Baltimore.

I admit it, when I read this, my first instinct was to squat and crap all over this take. Colt only being in charge of one side of the ball, can't help it if his defense plays like shit, can't help it if his O-line has him running for his life, etc.

Then I took a look at what really good QBs have done. And I pulled my figurative pants back up. Great/very good QBs have a way of making their teams win, and soon.

Here's a sample of the number of wins for some the game's better QBs in their first two seasons:

Brady - 5 wins in year 1, 11 (and a SB win) in year 2Peyton Manning - 3, 13Eli Manning - 6, 11McNabb - 5, 11Ryan - 11, 9Roethlisberger - 15, 11 (SB win)Elway - 9, 13Favre - 9, 9Aikman - 1, 7Kelly - 4, 7Montana - 6, 13 (SB win) (note: these are his first two seasons with significant playing time; he threw 23 passes his rookie season, which I do not consider here)Bradshaw - 5, 6Brees - 8, 4 (followed by 12 in year 3; he also falls into the category of his first NFL season not counting because of inactivity)

This sample is admittedly unscientific, and these guys cover a wide range of situations. Guys like Roethlisberger and Marino slipped in the draft to very good teams. But guys like Aikman, Peyton, Kelly, and Montana were drafted by some pretty awful teams -- ones that I am sure had holes all over the roster -- yet by their second seasons, they were winning ballgames. The great ones (even the ones who are "only" very good) find ways to win.

It's interesting that the one example that people most like to compare McCoy to -- Drew Brees -- actually goes against the pattern. He won 8 games in his rookie(*) season, then fell to 4 wins the next year. That's when the Chargers drafted Philip Rivers ... and that's when Brees came back to win 12 games.

I'm not going to go so far as to say that if Colt doesn't win 8 games this season, then he should be flushed and the process of finding a new QB should begin. If the Browns go 6-10 or 7-9 and show a lot of progress on offense, I'd be willing to stick it out with Colt. But Pup's point has a lot of history behind it, so I wouldn't be too quick to dismiss it.

Exactly.

Yes, it seems far too simple, but it's truth.

And I'm not sure how it's coming off to some that we're comparing him to HOF'ers.

Really, if Colt plays well they can win 8 games. Wanna argue 7? Fine.

And maybe he plays well and they lose a bunch of shoot-outs cause they can't stop anyone, or maybe they blow a few games cause guys are dropping passes. Maybe they don't protect him......these things COULD happen, but let's look at what will PROBABLY happen - that is, Colt plays well, they are in the neighborhood of 8 with this team and schedule. Colt plays poorly and they aren't close to 8.

And again, if anyone had him ready for a bust, or he was surrounded by more talent, the goal wouldn't be 8.

The question was to quantify a good season for Colt. Pup offered a short answer, using wins as a measuring stick. I would argue that not only is that the best gage in short form, it's no weaker in regard to outside circumstances than completion percentage, yards QB rating, or anything else.

As a matter of fact, the threads been out here for days. I have yet to find a better answer to the question posed. Anyone else?

pup wrote:So his job is to win. He is the QB. The most important position in sports. And if he is not good enough to win 8 games against this schedule, he will never be good enough to consistently beat Pittsburgh and Baltimore.

I admit it, when I read this, my first instinct was to squat and crap all over this take. Colt only being in charge of one side of the ball, can't help it if his defense plays like shit, can't help it if his O-line has him running for his life, etc.

Then I took a look at what really good QBs have done. And I pulled my figurative pants back up. Great/very good QBs have a way of making their teams win, and soon.

Here's a sample of the number of wins for some the game's better QBs in their first two seasons:

Brady - 5 wins in year 1, 11 (and a SB win) in year 2Peyton Manning - 3, 13Eli Manning - 6, 11McNabb - 5, 11Ryan - 11, 9Roethlisberger - 15, 11 (SB win)Elway - 9, 13Favre - 9, 9Aikman - 1, 7Kelly - 4, 7Montana - 6, 13 (SB win) (note: these are his first two seasons with significant playing time; he threw 23 passes his rookie season, which I do not consider here)Bradshaw - 5, 6Brees - 8, 4 (followed by 12 in year 3; he also falls into the category of his first NFL season not counting because of inactivity)

This sample is admittedly unscientific, and these guys cover a wide range of situations. Guys like Roethlisberger and Marino slipped in the draft to very good teams. But guys like Aikman, Peyton, Kelly, and Montana were drafted by some pretty awful teams -- ones that I am sure had holes all over the roster -- yet by their second seasons, they were winning ballgames. The great ones (even the ones who are "only" very good) find ways to win.

It's interesting that the one example that people most like to compare McCoy to -- Drew Brees -- actually goes against the pattern. He won 8 games in his rookie(*) season, then fell to 4 wins the next year. That's when the Chargers drafted Philip Rivers ... and that's when Brees came back to win 12 games.

I'm not going to go so far as to say that if Colt doesn't win 8 games this season, then he should be flushed and the process of finding a new QB should begin. If the Browns go 6-10 or 7-9 and show a lot of progress on offense, I'd be willing to stick it out with Colt. But Pup's point has a lot of history behind it, so I wouldn't be too quick to dismiss it.

Nice post, although at your designation that the players you listed are "some of the games better QB's". The majority are first ballot HOF'ers, so I guess if people want to compare Colt to Joe Montana then yes he should win. All of the above (from memory) had continuity with their coaching staff and the system. None went through an extended work stoppage bewteen their first and second years. I agree with Pup's basic premise, except that in this case the deck, IMO, is stacked against success. If he overcomes that, all the better.

All I am looking for is improvement as the year progresses. I don't believe W's and L's are that significant at this point.

I don't need to be patient, they're going to be shit forever. - CDT, discussing my favorite NFL team

leadpipe wrote:And I'm not sure how it's coming off to some that we're comparing him to HOF'ers.

I thought about that when I was writing the earlier post. I purposely tried to include several current QBs -- guys who are doing well, but haven't yet shown that they'll be in Canton.

In my mind, if Colt can't be favorably compared to the best QBs in the game after another season or two, then the Browns still need to find a QB.

And maybe he plays well and they lose a bunch of shoot-outs cause they can't stop anyone, or maybe they blow a few games cause guys are dropping passes. Maybe they don't protect him......these things COULD happen, but let's look at what will PROBABLY happen - that is, Colt plays well, they are in the neighborhood of 8 with this team and schedule. Colt plays poorly and they aren't close to 8.

That's why I can't say, in black and white terms, that Colt needs to win ___ games or else he hasn't had a good season. In any given game, one boneheaded play by a player can swing it from a W to a L. (Think back to Stuckey's fumble in the Jets game.) As soon as I say "Colt has to win 8 games", then he completes 65+% of his passes, but the D gives up 400+ points, leading to a 7-9 season.

I'm also not counting out the possibility that Colt really is one of "those" QBs, and this Browns team wins 10+ games. Not betting on it, but it's not unreasonable.

If it flies, floats, or fornicates, always rent it -- it's cheaper in the long run.

mattvan1 wrote:Nice post, although at your designation that the players you listed are "some of the games better QB's". The majority are first ballot HOF'ers, so I guess if people want to compare Colt to Joe Montana then yes he should win. All of the above (from memory) had continuity with their coaching staff and the system. None went through an extended work stoppage bewteen their first and second years. I agree with Pup's basic premise, except that in this case the deck, IMO, is stacked against success. If he overcomes that, all the better.

All I am looking for is improvement as the year progresses. I don't believe W's and L's are that significant at this point.

I specifically phrased the original post the way I did because I included several current QBs who (while very good) aren't ready for busts just yet. But this is Cleveland, after all, so let's use an example that fans here are more familiar with:

Kosar - 8, 12

Once again, wins seem to matter, no?

Just one more thing. If you agree with the basic premise that wins are ultimately what matters, but also feel that it isn't important in judging Colt's progress this season, then when do they start mattering? Year 3? Year 4? Year 10? And who are the examples of QBs who didn't win many games their first two (or more) seasons, but then became winners?

If it flies, floats, or fornicates, always rent it -- it's cheaper in the long run.

leadpipe wrote:And I'm not sure how it's coming off to some that we're comparing him to HOF'ers.

I thought about that when I was writing the earlier post. I purposely tried to include several current QBs -- guys who are doing well, but haven't yet shown that they'll be in Canton.

Because 8 of the 13 QB's listed are HOF'ers?In my mind, if Colt can't be favorably compared to the best QBs in the game after another season or two, then the Browns still need to find a QB.

A season or two - 100% agree. Key words "or two"

And maybe he plays well and they lose a bunch of shoot-outs cause they can't stop anyone, or maybe they blow a few games cause guys are dropping passes. Maybe they don't protect him......these things COULD happen, but let's look at what will PROBABLY happen - that is, Colt plays well, they are in the neighborhood of 8 with this team and schedule. Colt plays poorly and they aren't close to 8.

That's why I can't say, in black and white terms, that Colt needs to win ___ games or else he hasn't had a good season. In any given game, one boneheaded play by a player can swing it from a W to a L. (Think back to Stuckey's fumble in the Jets game.) As soon as I say "Colt has to win 8 games", then he completes 65+% of his passes, but the D gives up 400+ points, leading to a 7-9 season.

I'm also not counting out the possibility that Colt really is one of "those" QBs, and this Browns team wins 10+ games. Not betting on it, but it's not unreasonable.

Just so I'm clear on where (if) we disagree - neither DS nor The Reverend place any caveats on the fact the guy got a look at the new playbook for 1 day with Shurmur prior to the first day of camp?

Maybe I'm just making excuses (for a guy I really don't like playing for a HC I never wanted hired) but I cannot see how one could hold McCoy to the same standard as a QB that has continuity with the system and has gone through a "normal" offseason to get prepped. I am not saying that wins don't matter. I'm saying judging him by wins after no offseason and the change of scheme and a new HC may not be the best barometer of determining whether Colt=Neo.

I don't need to be patient, they're going to be shit forever. - CDT, discussing my favorite NFL team

What level of QB do you think we should compare Colt to, if not the best of the best? Who are some examples of the level you're thinking about? (BTW, the problem there is that the more we get away from the cream-of-the-cream standard, the more likely it is that those QBs (a) sat/played sparingly for several seasons before getting a shot and/or (b) bounced around at least a couple of teams. Matt Hasselbeck is an example that comes to mind. Good QB, led a team to a Super Bowl, but it took him a couple years of sitting, a change of scenery, and then a couple more seasons still before he was putting up the Ws.)

A season or two - 100% agree. Key words "or two"

So you're saying that you want to see results (wins) by year 3?

Just so I'm clear on where (if) we disagree - neither DS nor The Reverend place any caveats on the fact the guy got a look at the new playbook for 1 day with Shurmur prior to the first day of camp?

Maybe I'm just making excuses (for a guy I really don't like playing for a HC I never wanted hired) but I cannot see how one could hold McCoy to the same standard as a QB that has continuity with the system and has gone through a "normal" offseason to get prepped.

I don't think we're that far apart, actually. I also don't want to seem like I've dug my bunker and will go down fighting. Getting insight > being right. It just struck me that Pup's point (which, as I wrote earlier, initially prompted a reaction of "huh?") actually seemed to be right on once I took a closer look. That's really all I'm saying.

If it flies, floats, or fornicates, always rent it -- it's cheaper in the long run.

The Denver Elways at one time went 5-11, the Indianapolis Mannings 6-10, the Green Bay Favres once went 4-12, the Dallas Aikmans 6-10. All after their first years of existence!

The Pittsburgh Stewarts at one time went 13-3, the Baltimore Dilfers 7-1 (the league made an exception that year and allowed this franchise to advance to the playoffs despite not playing a full season), the Chicago Grossmans 13-3. Even the Cleveland Andersons managed a 10-5 record once! (Sadly, the Dilfer exception was not extended to us that year.)

So maybe it's best to keep our team & individual accomplishments/statistics separate.

hiko wrote:Numbers and wins take a backseat to me as opposed to the eye test.

When you watch a game and you see a competent QB, you know it. Numbers and wins can be skewed marvelously in either direction.

Without question. Certainly, give me 10 weeks watching the games and I'll be much more able to answer the initial question.

And, it would allow to take many things into consideration, including Matt's point of McCoy/Shurmer being new.

At the end of the day, I would stand behind a short answer of wins being a pretty good measure in regard to the initial post. Again, I don't see a better way RIGHT NOW to quantify Colt being offered in this thread.

Now "Wins" vs. "16 games of watching him" by someone who knows the game, now that's a different story.

Maybe the reality is you can't answer the initial post without offering material that is dependant on factors out of his control. Therefore, you can't really answer the post. But Pups given it the best shot thus far, ILO.

hiko wrote:Numbers and wins take a backseat to me as opposed to the eye test.

When you watch a game and you see a competent QB, you know it. Numbers and wins can be skewed marvelously in either direction.

Without question. Certainly, give me 10 weeks watching the games and I'll be much more able to answer the initial question.

And, it would allow to take many things into consideration, including Matt's point of McCoy/Shurmer being new.

At the end of the day, I would stand behind a short answer of wins being a pretty good measure in regard to the initial post. Again, I don't see a better way RIGHT NOW to quantify Colt being offered in this thread.

Now "Wins" vs. "16 games of watching him" by someone who knows the game, now that's a different story.

Maybe the reality is you can't answer the initial post without offering material that is dependant on factors out of his control. Therefore, you can't really answer the post. But Pups given it the best shot thus far, ILO.

Think this kind of goes without saying.

But in the job description of an NFL QB, winning comes before looking good. I promise.

There's a hell of a lot of space between denying any relation between QB play & winning and conflating team & QB statistics. Just because you seem to choose one goofy extreme doesn't automatically put those who disagree with you at the other.

Honestly this is a great conversation...I really do think in this league winning can be a coverup for average play at the QB position and loosing can be a magnifying glass on above average play... but the points are strong on both sides.

The winning QB versus great passer debate is and will continue to be a conversation that lingers because coaches and talent evaluators will always salivate over a guy who can sling it.

How does Trent Dilfer win a SB and get fired the very same year?

Why was the focus always on what Mike Vick couldn't do as a passer instead of his .600 winning percentage?

What percentage of Brady's winning percentage is Hoodie?

I think I will use the checklist approach to answer my own question. I'll post later when I narrow the list down.

jta1975 wrote:Watching ESPN made me think of this...are Dallas Clark,Reggie Wayne,Pierre Garcon,Austin Collie, and Addai good enough to win games with Kerry Collins?

What will the Colts record be if the Sheriff doesn't play at all this season?

Here's my thought, kind of off topic. What if this is the year that the Colts absolutely fall apart, playing Collins instead of Manning, and end up with the #1 pick and the chance to draft Luck? Kind of like that one year the Spurs lost the Admiral and ended up with Duncan.

If it flies, floats, or fornicates, always rent it -- it's cheaper in the long run.

jta1975 wrote:Watching ESPN made me think of this...are Dallas Clark,Reggie Wayne,Pierre Garcon,Austin Collie, and Addai good enough to win games with Kerry Collins?

What will the Colts record be if the Sheriff doesn't play at all this season?

Personally, I think there's Austin Collies and Pierre Garcons throughout the league, and while Dallas Clark is talented, the guy gets hurt and some cat we've never hearsd of replaces him and gobbles up yards and touchdowns like an all-pro.

On the LeBatard show last week, Dan asked Tony Dungy how he thought a shopping cart would do in the Colts offense with Manning at the helm. Dungy said that if it were allowed someone to push it up field it'd be good for 600 yards and five touchdowns.

jta1975 wrote:Honestly this is a great conversation...I really do think in this league winning can be a coverup for average play at the QB position and loosing can be a magnifying glass on above average play... but the points are strong on both sides.

The winning QB versus great passer debate is and will continue to be a conversation that lingers because coaches and talent evaluators will always salivate over a guy who can sling it.

How does Trent Dilfer win a SB and get fired the very same year?

Why was the focus always on what Mike Vick couldn't do as a passer instead of his .600 winning percentage?

What percentage of Brady's winning percentage is Hoodie?

I think I will use the checklist approach to answer my own question. I'll post later when I narrow the list down.

I'd like to answer the first question - cause that's the classic go to when the quarterback argument comes up.

Trent Dilfer won the Super Bowl on the back on a once in a generation defense, and circumstances in the playoffs where he didn't have to throw - and circumstances in which he did, that were extremely fortunate. Again, the divisional game he hits the defender in the hands, it clanks of the guys mitts, bounces up and Sharpe gets the 60 yard score. Ravens lead, no more passing for Trent. And the championship game against the Raiders was about as embarrassing a game for a quarterback I've ever seen. Check out that play by play, especially in the second half. They mine as well sent Dilfer out there with his arm taped to his side. So, he got fired the very same year cause he blew.

In the history of the Super Bowl, 90 + qb's counting winners and losers, and just an amazing number of guys that fit into one of two categories 1. Hall-of Fame/great QB's or 2. Guys you wouldn't list in category one, however, they were having MVP type seasons that year. But there's always the guy yelling Trent Dilfer and Stan Humphries, as if the quarterback doesn't matter all that much, or that we should still be geeked about their team, even though they don't have a QB.

So, the history of the league tells us, AS A RULE, if you get good quarterback play you win, if you don't, you don't. It has happened that you can get mediocre or poor QB play and win, and it's possible to get great quarterback play and lose, but I wouldn't bet that's the way it goes.

And the Brady/Hoodie question, (And this is coming from a guy who believes Hoodie is the best coach he's ever seen), well, I can name Hall of Fame QB's who played for non-hall of fame coaches. I couldn't name you a coach that got to the hall, who wasn't riding a great QB to get there.

I like the question and I like the "wins" approach because of mainly the schedule presented in 2011.

I see 11 relatively winnable/toss up games on the schedule this year, and the great majority of those are bunched, allowing for momemtum and confidence to be gained before entering the gauntlet at the end of the season.

11 winnable games and 5 ones we either aren't likely to win or shouldn't win given the talent comparison- I can see winning 8 of those as being a pretty good barometer for success, because in order to win those 8, with Shurmurs offense and a brand new defensive scheme, on a team light on talent and experience - It will almost CERTAINLY require good quarterback play.

And if for any number of reasons or factors the browns end up near the top of the draft again, I'll rely on Heckgren to say whether or not Colt had a good season by drafting or not drafting a new Quarterback.

Last edited by JCoz on Thu Sep 08, 2011 11:36 am, edited 1 time in total.

pup wrote:But in the job description of an NFL QB, winning comes before looking good. I promise.

I think post-SB Trent Dilfer would disagree with you.

In general, if you are performing well as a QB, then your team will win. They go somewhat hand in hand.

It is, however, entirely possible for a bad QB (Rex Grossman) to lead a winning team, just as it is entirely possible for a good QB to play on a losing team. There are 21 other players, and the QB performance has nothing to do with the Defensive side of the ball.

But I'd have to agree that if the Browns go 4-12, there's a really good chance that Colt played like shit.

In general, if you are performing well as a QB, then your team will win. They go somewhat hand in hand.

It is, however, entirely possible for a bad QB (Rex Grossman) to lead a winning team, just as it is entirely possible for a good QB to play on a losing team. There are 21 other players, and the QB performance has nothing to do with the Defensive side of the ball.

But I'd have to agree that if the Browns go 4-12, there's a really good chance that Colt played like shit.

Only thing I'd tweak there is "performing well as a QB," which I'd swap out for "getting good QB production."

An awful lot more than the QB goes into good QB production. Derek Anderson, for example, didn't play really well in 2007 and then go completely to shit in 2008. He was a shit QB propped up by two receivers having all-pro quality seasons, a franchise LT, a Pro Bowl LG, a RB having a very good season, going up against a shit schedule, etc. Did DA himself play better that year than in subsequent years? Sure, I guess probably a little. But a lot more than DA went right in 2007 to get us the QB production we got that year (which by the end of the season regressed to average anyway).

Good over all thread on this. Without going back to re-read I think one thing overlooked is the context of this franchise as opposed to the others of some of the QB's mentioned.

This org. is STILL reeling from past failures that go all the way back to the initial return. We're in arguably our 4th rebuild, and our 4th rookie HC. To subject our 2nd year QB to the standards of measure as suggested by some here (mostly pup) is borderline absurd. Not trying to be a jerk here pup I just think you are putting way too much on the shoulders of Colt relative to the team around him and the state of the franchise.

To this:

I couldn't name you a coach that got to the hall, who wasn't riding a great QB to get there.

I give you the easy answer of Chuck Noll.

Criminals in this town used to believe in things...honor, respect."I heard your dog is sick, so bought you this shovel"

FUDU wrote:Good over all thread on this. Without going back to re-read I think one thing overlooked is the context of this franchise as opposed to the others of some of the QB's mentioned.

This org. is STILL reeling from past failures that go all the way back to the initial return. We're in arguably our 4th rebuild, and our 4th rookie HC. To subject our 2nd year QB to the standards of measure as suggested by some here (mostly pup) is borderline absurd. Not trying to be a jerk here pup I just think you are putting way too much on the shoulders of Colt relative to the team around him and the state of the franchise.

To this:

I couldn't name you a coach that got to the hall, who wasn't riding a great QB to get there.

I give you the easy answer of Chuck Noll.

Bradshaw was a first ballot HOF'er.

I agree he's the most over-rated piece of hillbilly trash ever, but hard to argue that he wasn't at least considered "great".

I don't need to be patient, they're going to be shit forever. - CDT, discussing my favorite NFL team

FUDU wrote:Good over all thread on this. Without going back to re-read I think one thing overlooked is the context of this franchise as opposed to the others of some of the QB's mentioned.

This org. is STILL reeling from past failures that go all the way back to the initial return. We're in arguably our 4th rebuild, and our 4th rookie HC. To subject our 2nd year QB to the standards of measure as suggested by some here (mostly pup) is borderline absurd. Not trying to be a jerk here pup I just think you are putting way too much on the shoulders of Colt relative to the team around him and the state of the franchise.

To this:

I couldn't name you a coach that got to the hall, who wasn't riding a great QB to get there.

I give you the easy answer of Chuck Noll.

Bradshaw was a first ballot HOF'er.

I agree he's the most over-rated piece of hillbilly trash ever, but hard to argue that he wasn't at least considered "great".

Bradshaw is in the HOF b/c he has 4 rings, in large part due to a defensive dynasty, and pretty damn good pieces around him. Not here to debate whether he is worthy of that HOF credential, nother time nother place. But in context of what we're talking here, stat/wins, Bradshaw was by no means the overriding factor in the final outcome of those teams. Stoudt and Malone, LOL, not even worthy of a response LP.

Terry Bradshaw was the envisage of Trent Dilfer.

IMO, people (fans in general), just get wrapped up in agendas way too much that ends up blurring their objectivity in evaluating players in the position of Colt.

Recognize the team on the field, a player's skill set and decisions and the eye test will usually take care of itself.

Criminals in this town used to believe in things...honor, respect."I heard your dog is sick, so bought you this shovel"

FUDU wrote:Bradshaw is in the HOF b/c he has 4 rings, in large part due to a defensive dynasty, and pretty damn good pieces around him. Not here to debate whether he is worthy of that HOF credential, nother time nother place. But in context of what we're talking here, stat/wins, Bradshaw was by no means the overriding factor in the final outcome of those teams. Stoudt and Malone, LOL, not even worthy of a response LP.

Terry Bradshaw was the envisage of Trent Dilfer.

IMO, people (fans in general), just get wrapped up in agendas way too much that ends up blurring their objectivity in evaluating players in the position of Colt.

Recognize the team on the field, a player's skill set and decisions and the eye test will usually take care of itself.

For the 15th time, the surroundings are being recognized, hence the number being 8, instead of 12.

Not sure what all the hub bub is about. History has shown there's a pretty strong correlation between good QB play and wins. Sure, you'd be a moron to use that as the only factor, especially after the fact of seeing him play - but in a dopey exercise like the one beling asked in the initial post, man, it's quite reasonable.

FUDU wrote:Good over all thread on this. Without going back to re-read I think one thing overlooked is the context of this franchise as opposed to the others of some of the QB's mentioned.

This org. is STILL reeling from past failures that go all the way back to the initial return. We're in arguably our 4th rebuild, and our 4th rookie HC. To subject our 2nd year QB to the standards of measure as suggested by some here (mostly pup) is borderline absurd. Not trying to be a jerk here pup I just think you are putting way too much on the shoulders of Colt relative to the team around him and the state of the franchise.

Sorry, but that is simply a loser mentality. The failures of the Cleveland Browns prior to the arrival of Colt McCoy have NOTHING to do with the performance of the 2011 Cleveland Browns.

I may be putting too much on the shoulders of Colt McCoy. But if I am, we have our answer. That player, more specifically that position, has to transcend everything else. He has to be above ghosts. He has to be above historic failures. He has to be a winner. And if Colt is not that guy, we should throw our line back in the water, because that is the guy you need.

I think in the case of Colt McCoy, it is even more important. His chance to be the man is mostly predicated on his toughness. His leadership. His balls. His moxie. His whatever you want to call it. So if winning 8 games against about as good of a schedule as you could request is too much for him to handle, then how is he going to beat Pittsburgh/Baltimore even if you get to the point that the other 52 are on par with those teams?

When he won a ton of games his rookie season, he was not a good QB. When he won his first SB, he was not a good QB. They won those with running and defense and just asked him not to screw up too much.

When he won his second SB, he was a good QB. When he lost this last SB, he was a good QB, a much better QB than he was when he won his first one. They didn't lose because of him. His efforts kept them from getting blown out.

If Colt plays well but the team loses 10 games because the defense makes every other Offense look like the Packers, then I don't pin that on the QB.

hiko wrote:I think a good example of good QB v. winning QB would be POS.

When he won a ton of games his rookie season, he was not a good QB. When he won his first SB, he was not a good QB. They won those with running and defense and just asked him not to screw up too much.

When he won his second SB, he was a good QB. When he lost this last SB, he was a good QB, a much better QB than he was when he won his first one. They didn't lose because of him. His efforts kept them from getting blown out.

If Colt plays well but the team loses 10 games because the defense makes every other Offense look like the Packers, then I don't pin that on the QB.

From Elias: Colt McCoy threw a 14-yard touchdown pass to Mohamed Massaquoi with 43 seconds to play, and Phil Dawson's conversion gave the Browns a 17-16 win over the Dolphins. It was the first time in more than 30 years that the Browns scored a game-winning TD pass in the final minute of the fourth quarter before their home fans. Cleveland's eight previous victories of that type had been road wins. The Browns last such victory at home came against the Packers in October 1980, when Brian Sipe connected with Dave Logan for 46 yards with 16 seconds to play.

I don't need to be patient, they're going to be shit forever. - CDT, discussing my favorite NFL team